MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102880665 · doi:10.4141/p01-122

Leaf and stem dry matter digestibility and ruminal undegradable proteins of alfalfa cultivars

2002· article· en· W2102880665 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Gaëtan F. Tremblay, Gilles Bélanger, K. B. McRae, R. Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsCultivarDry matterForageBiologyAgronomyStem-and-leaf displayHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased dry matter digestibility and ruminal undegradable protein (RUP) concentration are traits highly ranked to improve the nutritive value of forage legumes. Whole-plant, leaf, and stem samples of 27 alfalfa cultivars grown in eastern Canada were analysed for total nitrogen (TN), in vitro RUP, and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD). The objectives were to determine if significant variation exists among these cultivars, and to establish the relationship between nutritive value parameters of leaves and stems, and those of whole plants. Cultivars were seeded in triplicate on 2 consecutive years and evaluated during the 2 subsequent production years with two harvests per year. There were significant differences among cultivars in IVDMD of stems and plants in spring growth and summer regrowth. Cultivar differences in leaf IVDMD were significant only in spring growth, but this variation was negligible in practical terms. Cultivars with high forage IVDMD also had high stem IVDMD and this relationship was stronger in summer regrowth. Alfalfa plant IVDMD is a function of stem digestibility and the leaf weight ratio (LWR). Cultivar differences were significant for plant TN in spring growth and summer regrowth, and for stem TN in spring growth only. Leaf (270 to 306 g kg -1 TN) and stem (242 to 287 g kg -1 TN) RUP concentrations varied among cultivars in spring growth. Cultivars with high stem RUP also had high leaf RUP concentration but differences in plant RUP were not always attributed to leaf and stem RUP. The RUP concentration was on average 10% higher in leaves than in stems in spring growth, and this difference reached 15% in summer regrowth. The LWR varied among cultivars in spring growth and summer regrowth, and it was positively related to plant RUP in spring growth. Improved whole-plant RUP concentration is unlikely to be achieved by simply selecting for high RUP in leaves or stems; LWR has a principal role in determining alfalfa plant RUP concentration. Key words: Dry matter digestibility, ruminal undegradable proteins, alfalfa, genetic variation, stems, leaves

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207